DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
I. Applicant's Response to the Examiner's "Response to Arguments" Section
35 U.S.C. §102 rejections
Regarding claim 1, in paragraph 2 on page 6 through paragraph 1 on page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke does not teach modifying a wavelength, specifically a change in the frequency of the wavelength or a wavelength frequency translation. The examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraphs 3 and 6 on page 14 of the office action, dated 03/21/2025, the teachings of Quetschke related to modifying a wavelength are discussed. Specifically, Quetschke teaches a method for modifying a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that propagates through a medium (Quetschke, Fig. 3, paragraph [0011], “method and apparatus for modulating light. The apparatus incorporates a modulator crystal… the electric field modulates light passing through the modulator crystal”) and modifying at least one wavelength of the electromagnetic (Quetschke, Fig. 3, paragraph [0014], “The electric field alters the wavelength of the light passing through the modulator crystal for light having a polarization component in the direction of the electric field.) Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a change in the frequency) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 2, in paragraph 2 on page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that “claim 2 expressly limits the invention to operation in a high-intensity regime exceeding 1013 W cm-2“ and neither Quetschke nor Chwalek teach this limitation. This argument is not persuasive because claim 2 does not express such limitation, but instead states an “electromagnetic radiation source is a laser selected from the group consisting of high power and high pulse energy lasers.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the invention operates in a high-intensity regime exceeding 1013 W cm-2) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claims 22 and 23, in paragraph 3 on page 8 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that “dependent claims 22 and 23 mandate the use of a nonlinear crystal, such as LiNbO3, to exploit intensity-dependent n2 contributions,” and that Quetschke fails to teach the use of a nonlinear crystal such as LiNbO3. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In paragraphs 4-5 on page 16 of the office action, dated 03/21/2025, the teachings of Quetschke related to the medium are discussed. Specifically, Quetschke teaches a LiNbO3 crystal which is a well-known nonlinear crystal (Quetschke, Fig. 3, paragraph [0011], the modulator crystal can be LiNbO3). Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
35 U.S.C. §103 rejections
Regarding claim 6, in paragraph 4 on page 8 through paragraph 5 on page 9 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke in combination with Chiang does not teach the application of or the motivation to use a laser that emits 0.1-1 mJ pulses to change the optical carrier frequency or a time-ramped Δn(t) that accumulates to yield a red- or blue-shift.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a change in the optical carrier frequency and a time-ramped Δn(t) that accumulates to yield a red- or blue-shift) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 7, in paragraph 1 on page 10 through paragraph 3 on page 11 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke in combination with Chiang does not teach the application of or the motivation to use a laser that operates within a repetition-rate window of 100 Hz-1 kHz to translate the wavelength via a temporal refractive-index ramp.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., translate the wavelength via a temporal refractive-index ramp) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 3 on page 18 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 13, in paragraph 4 on page 11 through paragraph 3 on page 12 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant submits that claim 13 requires “selectively controlling the wavelength of electromagnetic radiation in first and second spectral portions by independently inducing time-varying refractive-index changes in corresponding first and second regions of a nonlinear medium,” and the claim recites that “different parts of the spectrum are tuned independently.” The applicant argues that Quetschke and Chiang fail to teach or suggest “this multi-spectral control.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., region-by-region wavelength control using the Pockels or Kerr effect) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 5 on page 18 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 14, in paragraph 4 on page 12 through paragraph 3 on page 13 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the claim 14 limitation “the temporally induced refractive-index modulation is synchronized with the fundamental frequency (or repetition rate) of the driving laser so that each optical pulse encounters a predetermined phase of the index modulation cycle,” is a positive claim limitation requiring that “synchronization between the refractive-index ramp and the electromagnetic-radiation frequency is not merely a preferred embodiment drawn from the specification; it is a positive limitation of the claim itself.” The applicant argues that Quetschke and Chiang fail to teach or suggest “this synchronization requirement.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., synchronization between the refractive-index ramp and the electromagnetic-radiation frequency) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “the temporally induced refractive-index modulation is synchronized with the fundamental frequency (or repetition rate) of the driving laser so that each optical pulse encounters a predetermined phase of the index modulation cycle” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 15, in paragraph 4 on page 13 through paragraph 3 on page 14 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the claim 15 limitation “varying the amplitude of the modulating electric field so as to set, and thereafter stabilize, a target magnitude of wavelength shift within a predefined tolerance,” is a positive claim. The applicant further argues that Quetschke and Chiang fail to teach or suggest the “amplitude-control functionality.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., varying the amplitude of the modulating electric field so as to set, and thereafter stabilize, a target magnitude of wavelength shift within a predefined tolerance) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “varying the amplitude of the modulating electric field so as to set, and thereafter stabilize, a target magnitude of wavelength shift within a predefined tolerance” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 4, in paragraph 4 on page 14 through paragraph 7 on page 15 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the claim 4 limitation “further comprising directing the electromagnetic radiation through a focusing element positioned to concentrate the radiation within a focal region of the nonlinear medium, thereby locally enhancing the temporally induced refractive-index modulation and stabilizing the resultant wavelength shift,” is a positive claim limitation requiring that “the requirement for a focusing component, and its stated purpose of enabling wavelength-specific modulation, is a positive limitation of the claim itself.” The applicant argues that Quetschke, Chiang, and Platonov fail to teach or suggest the “focusing strategy.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., directing the electromagnetic radiation through a focusing element positioned to concentrate the radiation within a focal region of the nonlinear medium, thereby locally enhancing the temporally induced refractive-index modulation and stabilizing the resultant wavelength shift) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “further comprising directing the electromagnetic radiation through a focusing element positioned to concentrate the radiation within a focal region of the nonlinear medium, thereby locally enhancing the temporally induced refractive-index modulation and stabilizing the resultant wavelength shift” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Regarding claim 9, in paragraph 1 on page 16 through paragraph 3 on page 17 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant submits that claim 9 further recites “… adjusting the effective mode area of the electromagnetic radiation within the focusing element so that the local intensity is set to a target value that limits self-phase modulation while preserving the magnitude of the temporally induced refractive-index change,” and thus requires “(i) varying the mode area (and therefore intensity) inside the focusing optic, and (ii) doing so for the stated purpose of regulating nonlinear effects to achieve precise wavelength tuning.” The applicant argues that Quetschke, Chiang, and Platonov fail to teach or suggest the adjustment of the effective mode area of the electromagnetic radiation.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., adjusting the effective mode area of the electromagnetic radiation within the focusing element so that the local intensity is set to a target value that limits self-phase modulation while preserving the magnitude of the temporally induced refractive-index change) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 4 on page 20 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 11, in paragraph 4 on page 17 through paragraph 4 on page 18 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant submits that claim 11 further recites “… independently addressing first and second sub-regions of the nonlinear medium with temporally staggered electric-field waveforms so that (i) the refractive index in each sub-region is modulated with a distinct phase offset and (ii) the resulting optical output exhibits differential wavelength shifts between the first and second sub-regions.” The applicant argues that Quetschke, Chiang, and Platonov fail to teach or suggest the claimed spatial-temporal index control.
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independently addressing first and second sub-regions of the nonlinear medium with temporally staggered electric-field waveforms so that (i) the refractive index in each sub-region is modulated with a distinct phase offset and (ii) the resulting optical output exhibits differential wavelength shifts between the first and second sub-regions) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 6 on page 20 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 16, in paragraph 5 on page 18 through paragraph 4 on page 20 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the claim 16 limitation “linearly time-dependent electric field” is a positive claim limitation requiring that “the variable electric-field drive applied to the nonlinear medium increases (or decreases) substantially linearly with time over a modulation interval Δt, thereby producing a correspondingly linear refractive-index ramp and a cumulative wavelength shift of the transmitted radiation.” The applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Rogers fails to teach the “linearly time-dependent electric field” because they fail to teach “(1) a drive source capable of generating a linear-ramp waveform rather than the sinusoidal or pulsed waveforms taught in the cited art; and (2) modulation interval during which the field remains monotonic, so that the optical carrier frequency is chirped in one direction without reversal.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a driver that produces a linearly increasing ( or decreasing) electric field over the time scales necessary to achieve the claimed wavelength-translation effect) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “linearly time-dependent electric field” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Further, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 3 on page 21 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 17, in paragraph 5 on page 20 through paragraph 3 on page 22 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the claim 17 limitation “linearly increasing electric-field drive” is a positive claim limitation requiring that “the variable electric field applied to the nonlinear medium increases substantially linearly with time during a modulation interval, thereby producing a cumulative wavelength shift toward lower optical frequencies.” The applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Rogers fails to teach the “linearly increasing electric-field drive” because they fail to teach a “linear ramp for wavelength shifting.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., linear ramp for wavelength shifting) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “linearly increasing electric-field drive” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Finally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in the last two lines on page 21 through the first two lines on page 22 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
Regarding claim 19, in paragraph 4 on page 22 through paragraph 3 on page 24 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that claim 19 limitation “linearly decreasing electric-field drive” is a positive claim limitation requiring that “the variable electric field applied to the nonlinear medium increases substantially linearly with time during a modulation interval, thereby producing a cumulative wavelength shift toward lower optical frequencies.” The applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Rogers fails to teach the “linearly decreasing electric-field drive” because they fail to teach a “monotonic down-ramp for wavelength shifting.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., monotonic down-ramp for wavelength shifting) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to the applicant’s argument that “linearly decreasing electric-field drive” is a positive limitation, while it is appropriate to use the specification to determine what the applicant intends a term to mean, a positive limitation from the specification cannot be read into a claim that does not itself impose that limitation. See MPEP §2111.01(II), "Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment." Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also Liebel-Flarsheim Co. v. Medrad Inc., 358 F.3d 898, 906, 69 USPQ2d 1801, 1807 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Finally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 2 on page 23 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
II. Independent Claim 1
In paragraphs 1-3 on page 25 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke as evidenced by Chwalek does not teach the “modification of wavelength” limitation of claim 1, because the prior art fails to teach or suggest that the optical frequency is changed.” The applicant respectfully disagrees. In paragraphs 3 and 6 on page 14 of the office action, dated 03/21/2025, the teachings of Quetschke related to modifying a wavelength are discussed. Specifically, Quetschke teaches a method for modifying a wavelength of electromagnetic radiation that propagates through a medium (Quetschke, Fig. 3, paragraph [0011], “method and apparatus for modulating light. The apparatus incorporates a modulator crystal… the electric field modulates light passing through the modulator crystal”) and modifying at least one wavelength of the electromagnetic (Quetschke, Fig. 3, paragraph [0014], “The electric field alters the wavelength of the light passing through the modulator crystal for light having a polarization component in the direction of the electric field.) Thus, this argument is not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., a change in the optical frequency) are not recited in the rejected claims. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
III. Independent Claim 2
In paragraph 4 on page 25 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke does not teach a “high power” laser because Quetschke fails to teach or suggest the required “operation in a regime where nonlinear-index effects dominate(> 1013 W cm-2 or 2:0.1 mJ per pulse),” and that “a bare reference to ‘high power’ cannot satisfy a numerically bounded limitation.” This argument is not persuasive because claim 2 does not express such limitation, but instead states an “electromagnetic radiation source is a laser selected from the group consisting of high power and high pulse energy lasers.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the invention operates in a high-intensity regime exceeding 1013 W cm-2) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
IV. Dependent Claims 22 and 23
In paragraph 1 on page 26 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke fails to teach or suggest the use of a nonlinear crystal such as LiNbO3, because Quetschke does not suggest operating LiNbO3 in the claimed high-power, nonlinear regime to effect wavelength translation.
In response to applicant's argument that Quetschke fails to teach the nonlinear crystal such as LiNbO3 of claims 22 and 23 because Quetschke does not suggest operating LiNbO3 in the claimed high-power, nonlinear regime to effect wavelength translation, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
V. Legal Deficiencies in the Anticipation Rejection
In paragraphs 2-4 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke “lacks an express teaching of wavelength change” and Quetschke’s method does not produce the “claimed wavelength shift.” These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as provided above for claim 1.
I. Threshold Deficiency Common to All Five Claims
In paragraphs 1-2 on page 27 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant submits that claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15 depend on the step of “modifying at least one wavelength … by externally inducing a temporal change in refractive index.” The applicant argues that Quetschke fails to teach claims 6, 7, 13, 14, and 15 because Quetschke does not teach -or inherently perform- any cumulative change in carrier frequency, and since “the alleged wavelength-shift mechanism is missing from the primary reference, the obviousness combinations cannot supply it merely by importing auxiliary parameters.” These arguments are not persuasive for the same reasons as provided above for claim 1
II. Claim 6 – Pulse-Energy Range (0.1 – 1 mJ)
In paragraph 3 on page 27 through the first three lines on page 28 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that Quetschke combined with Chiang does not teach the limitation of claim 6, specifically having the pulse energy in the claimed range >1013 W cm-2. The applicant further argues that Chiang’s 0.172 mJ pulse is not tailored for electro-optic modulators, and thus “a skilled artisan would transplant that energy level into Quetschke's device expecting a predictable wavelength shift.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the invention operates in a high-intensity regime exceeding 1013 W cm-2) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant's argument that Chiang’s 0.172 mJ pulse is not tailored for electro-optic modulators, and thus “a skilled artisan would transplant that energy level into Quetschke's device expecting a predictable wavelength shift,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
III. Claim 7 – Repetition Rate Window (100 Hz – 1 kHz)
In paragraph 2 on page 28 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke and Chiang fail to teach or suggest the repetition rate in the range of 100 Hz to 1 kHz because “nothing links that rate to the missing wavelength-shift mechanism or to ‘precise, periodic external modulation’.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., wavelength-shift mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraph 3 on page 18 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
IV. Claim 13 - Medium Exhibiting Pockels or Kerr Effect and Selective Wavelength Control
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., independently modulates different spectral portions, region-by-region index sculpting, and distinct wavelength shifts) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
V. Claim 14 - Electrode Pair on First and Second Sides
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the controlled voltage be synchronized with the optical frequency or repetition rate to "achieve more efficient wavelength adjustment.") are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
VI. Claim 15-Amplitude-Calibrated Wavelength Tuning
In paragraph 1 on page 29 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues the Quetschke fails to teach or suggest “stabilizing an absolute wavelength shift via amplitude control. Since the underlying wavelength-shift mechanism is missing, varying amplitude cannot ‘set and thereafter stabilize a target magnitude of wavelength shift,’ as required.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the underlying wavelength-shift mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
VII. Conclusion
In paragraph 2 on page 29 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the “proposed combinations add Chiang's energy and timing parameters to Quetschke' s phase modulator, but they never supply (nor motivate) the missing wavelength-translation engine central to every contested claim.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the wavelength-translation engine) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
1. Foundational deficiency common to all three claims
In the last four lines on page 29 through the first three lines on page 30 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang and Platonov fails to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 4, 9, and 11 because the core wavelength-translation mechanism is missing from the primary reference and no parameter imported from Chiang or Platonov can cure the deficiency.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the wavelength-translation mechanism) are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2. Claim 4 - Intensity > 1 x 1013 W cm-2
In paragraphs 2-4 on page 30 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke and Platonov fail to teach the limitations of claim 4, specifically that the electromagnetic radiation has an intensity exceeding 1 x 1013 W cm-2, because “Quetschke's Pockels cell is designed for low-intensity, linear electro-optic operation; driving it above 1013 W cm-2 would risk optical damage and walkoff without any suggestion that a wavelength shift would result. Nothing in Platonov links its high damage-threshold discussion to electro-optic phase modulators.”
In response to applicant's argument that the intensity of Platonov would not be obvious to combine with the design of Quetschke because it would invoke an entirely different physical process, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
3. Claim 9 - Output-power > 100 kW
In response to applicant's argument that transplanting the 100 kW peak power into Quetschke’s 2-3 mm aperture LiNbO3 crystal would exceed crystal damage limits and that a skilled artisan would not select such a power level, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
4. Claim 11 - Pulse duration < 5 ps
In the last two lines on page 30 through paragraph 2 on page 31 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Platonov does not teach or suggest the pulse duration of less than 5 picoseconds because neither Quetschke nor Chiang comprise the requisite driver electronics to track picosecond pulses.
In response to applicant's argument that “no prior-art circuitry or engineering pathway that would make such synchronization plausible”, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
5. Impermissible hindsight
In paragraph 3 on page 31 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that “the rejection pieces together (i) Quetschke's low-intensity phase modulator, (ii) Chiang's Nd:YVQ4 pump figures, and (iii) Platonov's large-mode-area fiber thresholds, but never explains why a skilled artisan would merge these disparate teachings to meet the specific high-intensity, high-power, and ultrashort-pulse constraints while expecting a controlled wavelength shift (a phenomenon which is absent from every reference).”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the wavelength shift) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Finally, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in paragraphs 2, 4, and 6 on page 20 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
In paragraph 2 on page 32 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Rogers fail to teach or suggest the limitations of claims 16, 17-21, and 24 because “none of the cited references discloses-or even suggests-the foundational step common to each of the rejected claims: producing a carrier-frequency (wavelength) translation by temporally sculpting the refractive index of a nonlinear crystal.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., carrier-frequency translation) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In paragraph 3 on page 32 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that “The three references address distinct technical problems in unrelated operating regimes, and the record contains no suggestion that their teachings, when combined, would predictably produce the claimed red- or blue-shifts.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., red- or blue-shifts) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation is provided in pages 21-25 of the office action dated 03/21/2025.
In paragraph 4 on page 32 of the Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that the combination of Quetschke, Chiang, and Rogers fail to teach the limitations of claims 16-21, and 24 because “Rogers never applies its ramps to an electro-optic crystal, never synchronizes them with picosecond laser pulses, and never reports an optical wavelength shift.”
In response to applicant's argument that Rogers’s arbitrary-wavelength generator fails to teach the limitations of claims 16-21, and 24 because Rogers never applies its ramps to an electro-optic crystal, never synchronizes them with picosecond laser pulses, and never reports an optical wavelength shift, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Claim-Specific Deficiencies
Regarding claim 16, in paragraph 1 on page 33 of Applicant’s Remarks, the applicant argues that “Rogers's linear voltage ramps are disclosed for mechanical mass sensing, not optical chirping. Nothing in Rogers, Quetschke, or Chiang indicates that substituting such a ramp into a LiNbQ3 modulator would yield a frequency sweep rather than a time-varying phase delay.”
First, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., the frequency sweep) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Second, in response to applicant's argument that “substituting such a ramp into a LiNbQ3 modulator would yield a frequency sweep rather than a time-varying phase delay,” the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the